Re: [Ianaplan] comments on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

Le 2014-10-24 à 09:23, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> a écrit :

> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 08:59:35AM +0200, Richard Hill wrote:
>> 
>> I was under the impression that that text reflected our discussions during the audio conference.  But perhaps my impression is not correct.
>> 
> 
> It certainly reflects what some people wanted at the interim.  I
> argued then, and I argue now, that this level of specification isn't
> something we want.  I am prepared to be in the rough, of course, like
> anyone else.  So,
> 
>> substantive about jurisdiction. So, if the above text is not
>> acceptable to all
> 
> we don't need text acceptable to all.  We need text that's achieves
> rough consensus.
> 
>> "The IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental agreement regarding
>> jurisdiction and any necessary dispute resolution mechanisms, taking
>> into account that it may be preferable to specify a neutral
>> jurisdiction such as arbitration in Switzerland."
> 
> It may be preferable also to specify jurisdictions where any of the
> bodies are incorporated, to the extent they are, also.  

I would rephrase as: This suggestion (Switzerland) might be a good idea, but it is not in this forum to handle this.

Marc.

> So if we're
> going to include instructions to get an agreement about jurisdiction
> and dispute resolution, then I am very strongly opposed to specifying
> what jurisdiction that ought to be.  I don't think the WG should get
> into that kind of instructing of the IAOC.  Also, see below.
> 
>> "Further, the IAOC is asked to consider whether it would be
>> appropriate for the IANA function to be legally domiciled in a
>> neutral jurisdiction such as Switzerland, possibily with immunity of
>> jurisdiction."
> 
> I think that's completely off-topic for this, and it's also clearly
> outside our charter since it would be a major change to the existing
> arrangements and our charter tells us not to do that: "This working
> group is chartered solely with respect to the planning needed for the
> transition, and is not meant to cover other topics related to
> IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set aside for
> future consideration."  The recommendation of jurisdiction in the
> first proposal also seems to me to be in violation of that term.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan